holon_earth @ holon_earth @slrpnk.net

Posts

1

Comments

34

Joined

7 mo. ago

I thought the same way as validating in Proof-of-Stake works: The devices have a private key (yes there are issues there about securing them for non-authorized access, but they can largely be addressed like also nodes do) which is registered on the blockchain. Then only these registered devices can issue coins. This is critical and there might be a lot of ways this could be hackable, which could or could not be mitigated. However I thought it's not more of a challenge than running say an Ethereum or any other node.

So the primary reason I wrote this post was not to talk about something I am convinced of as a solution, but exactly for people to drill holes and fire everything they have at it. If I don't have the answers, it would not work in real life. So first of all tI am grateful to everyone who is chiming in.

There is a fundamental aversion in Solarpunk circles towards blockchains. I don't want to change that, nor argue against that. The crypto space has earned this aversion all by themselves. There is obvious abuse and misallocation through these concepts.

I am an engineer. I have fought all my life to get a balance between my affinity to tech and the harm we are doing to the planet. But - we can't just all get back to be farmers, can we? I love Solarpunk because it inspires to get to that balance, where we don't need all to go back to bare basics, but use technology for a harmonious life with our host planet.

Technology is a big word. Can we demonize technology in general? Is the Internet bad? Are EVs bad? Are solar panels bad (think of what it takes to create them!). I am sure that is not an issue here, or so I hope.

Blockchains. Again, blockchains are just data structures. Fundamentally, numbers linked to other numbers. Yes, they require energy, but so does the entire Internet. You wouldn't blame the Internet as a whole just because it's used for capitalist maximalization, much more than blockchains are being used for that? Should we stop using it because big corps make most of their money nowadays through the Internet?

Blockchains are also just tools. Yes, most stuff is anti-thetic to Solarpunk. Notwithstanding, I (and many others) believe it has potential to bring about some change. They are fundamentally a more democratic tool because they lower the barrier to entry. Everyone can participate, and nobody can take that away from you. We can argue about democracy too, as democracy per se is a very abstract concept as well, and there are no absolutes nor silver bullets. Every community of any scale has to work it out for themselves, but it's blatantly obvious that what we call today Democracy is a farce.

Associating crypto-technology to "crypto-capitalist tech fetishism" exclusively, however, is, excuse my counter-pun here, which I also present without personal affront, not understanding the technology as such. There are donating platforms built with crypto. There are also dedicated crypto-leftist groups, check out https://www.reddit.com/r/cryptoleftists/ or their discord channel. There are bioregional and regenerative finance projects who channel resources to people doing great (solarpunk) stuff on the ground. There are a lot of many more great ideas based on crypto. A lot of them fail to get attraction, a lot fail altogether as a project, a lot are too idealistic, a lot just fall under the radar, and a lot are useless. A lot could be done without blockchains, or not at all.

I was not trying to convince anyone that this solar crypto stuff IS Solarpunk, I only tried to get feedback to the question if it is a feasible project with some beneficial properties, these being for example to communally govern resources, and providing income to people (what if shanty-towns would have their solar roofs. A game changer for them) while further boosting solar energy generation. Frankly after reading some replies it doesn't look like. I don't mind if people say it is or not Solarpunk, or all the other (always welcomed) dismissing and rejecting critique. The aim was to try to identify if there is merit in even trying. And it looks there isn't, purely based on practical and economical criteria, like some you did point out in your reply.

"Communal, shared infrastructure" is an abstract concept as well. There is a tension rarely talked about, and it is if this means we need to go back living in small village-like communities only. It often sounds like that. Is that really the end game? I am not sure. In that case yes, blockchains and a whole lot of other stuff are superfluous. However, I assume most people writing here live in cities, with a romanticized ideal of what it means to live in small close-knit communities, because they never actually had the chance to do that. I have. And I have lived in cities. The population share living in cities is constantly growing. Most city people want to continue living in cities. So what we do? Can "Communal, shared infrastructure without growth" as a concept be applied to all scales? Maybe it can, and blockchains could be a powerful tool to mediate the transition to that, due to their unique characteristics of accountability, transparency and decentralization.

Or maybe not. That's totally fine.

Your reasoning is sound and consistent. I am not going to argue against that because I have thought for a long time the same way.

But I strongly doubt, having got older and observed a lot how the world works, that this is going to happen in any foreseeable time frame. Even if I would myself wish it was that way.

We are a huuuge minority thinking that way. People are blinded by ever more distraction, consumption, goods, and also extensive travelling all over the world. They all WANT that, even if it's an illusion making them unhappy in cases. I am not religious, but do you know the tale of Noah? He basically was telling people that something was coming, but they all ignored him. They were (and will be) dancing as long as the music plays.

So if you think we are magically turning people's minds towards that - I don't think that will happen, ever. The only way will be a total societal collapse, but that will be ugly, and I don't think in that scenario we will get to utopia.

Now you may say it's exactly people like me who prevent this from becoming real. Maybe, but I am tired of being accused things for problems I didn't create, and feeling bad about being realistic about how I think things could unfold.

It's as realistic as your scenario to think that using technological means can get us to a Solarpunk future. In fact, Solarpunk is a lot about technology, but technology at the service of all people and not just a few. THAT is the social issue. And it has persisted through all ages and empires, because it is agnostic to technology.

Maybe we are all just helpless dreamers, and any of this whatsoever will happen. I think we should just be sympathetic of each other and not dismiss too much ahead of time.

You are also using a device to debate here, and that is a technological tool. You have an idea what is behind the Internet, with all its devices and the accumulated consumption? We could say if it's only social then we should organize in real life and don't waste time online?

But you need folks to work with you today, so you use what is available. I don't care if whatever I think about today will be obsolete in x years, nobody can predict the future. I am also only just trying to contribute to get us there, not to be right.

Yeah bitcoin is obviously not going to look well there. However, that's taking one example and apply to everything, which is inaccurate. Like taking a massive Hummer and take its consumption for every (gas) car in existence.

The blockchain I am talking about wouldn't have such power consumption because it doesn't use mining. I have made allusions of how that works in other comments.

There's no mining here. The generating device "mines" the token when it generates the energy.

The word "mining" is misleading. It actually refers to the process of bringing a coin into existence. There are many ways to do that, one is by running math puzzles by CPUs which is energy intensive (like what bitcoin does). Generating energy itself could be another way, therefore there's no waste.

I can't blame you for this sentiment because there is a lot of scamming. So is the current monetary system btw, even at a bigger and blunt scale.

Crypto is just math, what people do with it is something different. It's a tool, and it can be used for good as for bad.

It's not an open market though. It's gated and you are at the mercy of the local authorities, which often are very restrictive and difficult. It's not even possible everywhere. Plus, you don't get paid the market price, as they naturally want to maintain their monopoly and want to scoop.the profit of reselling.

While all the maintenance costs are still up to you.

Blockchain is an accounting system first, which happens to underpin a lot of the crypto money space. But it has nothing to do with money per se.

In a future moneyless society, is everyone free to consume as much as they want? Maybe that works, I don't have an answer, but maybe it's also an option to just account for everyone's consumption (maybe in absolute terms, e.g. kWh?), and apply some limits. The disregard of limits is probably the first culprit against sustainability, and this society is not the first in failing there.

Traditional database solutions often don't consume less, because they are centralized and need to account for all the load. Hence they are fat, difficult to maintain and scale, need backup, and run in energy sucking datacenters where you don't have control.

Not even speaking of the data. Subject to hacking, manipulation, gated control, data loss, and a myriad of other problems.

Granted, MOST "problems" being thrown blockchains at are non-issues and just a hype hammer looking for nails, but there are genuine use cases where blockchains DOES solve important issues.

There's no mining. Only a few blockchains require mining today. The energy generation IS the mining. Every kwh which has been generated would just issue a token. Sorry if that sounds mumbo jumbo, but these are actually blockchain technology characteristics.

Good points. I thought to yes, reward every kwh generated. I am not sure how the not-enough-consumption is a severe issue. Is it one at all (given the amounts people would be able to generate in the first place), can it be stored, in batteries or even own vehicles...

The not-enough-production is different, every used token would be destroyed, hence there can't be more tokens than production. I think...

Yes but you are at the mercy of utility companies, who are often very restrictive. You don't get as much as you would get on the market, otherwise they wouldn't be able to resell.

In allowing people generating solar energy to be fairly rewarded. Schemes today are at the mercy of the utility companies. Basically, to incentivize people to generate more solar energy than is already happening. Think of roofs.

I realize this is only meaningful if for some (I guess economic) reason they get more through that than through selling to the grid.

Great question. This can be prevented by technological means. Basically, "minting" of the coins would happen at the generation devices. There would have to be some cryptographical means of preventing misuse.